You're right. In Dutch they called it the fast "O" ring type. I have the other one which is a bit cheaper. Added an old EF 11-24L beside my FD 17. Hello from Amsterdam.
Had this lens but sold it for the Tokina 17mm AT-X pro. A lot sharper, better build quality and the filter threads don’t rotate, so you can put a vari ND or matte box on no problem. Oh and it’s A LOT cheaper and covers FF.
For anyone looking for a vintage ultrawide alternative without the rotation issue for variable ND usage the Toking RMC 17mm F3.5 is fantastic. Flaring characteristics match the FD S.S.C. line and any other variations with similar coatings. Build isn't quite as robust as the FD's but otherwise I use it over the FD 17mm or 20mm on every shoot at this point. It's starting to climb in price as well but can be found in various mount types for those already using adapters. Also seems to perform better in terms of overall sharpness and aberrations especially in the center. Corners are still dark and lacking like any of the FD ultrawides. Plus I'd say the overall look changes between wide open and one stop down more noticeably than the FD's do.
This lens, with a good quality focak reducer, is awesome for food photography, architecture, interiors, events, photojournalism... Basically most subject matter.
Hia. Thanks for the great review. It's a little difficult to tell because I don't have my computer handy and am watching this on my phone, but is it a sharp lens? I get the impression that it's softer than many would consider ideal. Is this fair, or am I just mislead by the phone screen? Thanks
Love the video; nice review! I'm trying to decide between this lens and the FD 20mm 2.8. Do you have any insight on comparing the two? I shoot on the BMPCC 4K with a Metabones Ultra Speedbooster, and I've had my FD glass converted to EF mount by Simmod. I currently have the 28mm 2.8, 35mm F2, 55mm 1.2 and the 70-210mm F4.
Thank you I appreciate it! Here's the specs for both lenses Both 6 aperture blades 72mm front filter thread. 0.9ft (10.8in) close focus 17mm 104° field of view (full frame) F4 to F22 Focus Ring Rotation: approx. 140° Weight: 490g 20mm 94° field of view (full frame) F2.8 to F22 Focus ring Rotation: approx 130° Weight: 305g
Unfortunately I haven't gotten a chance to use the 20mm lens. But what I do know is that the FDn version is lighter than the SSC version. The lens is not too sharp at 2.8 so you'd have to stop down to a 4 or 5.6 for more sharpess edge to edge. Both lenses have the same close focus distance but the 20mm has a slight advantage since the focus ring Rotation on the 20mm is smaller by 10° so to rack focus from close to infinity is easier. The 17mm has the issue where the front element rotates along with the focus ring so if you use a clip on mattebox or variable ND those won't work with the lens. You would have yo have a studio mattebox a fixed ND filter. Now, I'm not sure if that's the same issue with the 20mm but I can look into it and see what i can find. Overall I'm enjoying the 17mm a lot! And if you're not in a rush I can manage to get a 20mm to give you a better answer and show you sample footage between the two lenses. You have a great set of FDs. Would love yo hear what you think of the 55mm 1.2
@@dln.camera5524 Thanks, I appreciate it! I'm curious how sharp the 20mm is below F4. Might be the deciding factor. Although, about a 10% wider field-of-view isn't arbitrary. Is there any barrel-distortion with the 17mm?
There is some barrel distortion on the 17mm but it's not too heavy. Unless you are doing architecture shots where theres more straight lines. It might be worth it to go for the 20mm with the wider aperture.
@@dln.camera5524 Yeah that'd be awesome! I'm in no hurry. I'm hoping to get it back from Simmod in the next week or so. I've got some test footage of the FD 28mm 2.8 on my channel. I was quite pleased with how it turned out, especially since that's a pretty affordable lens.
The lens seems to be clean with no signs of fongus or haze. What you might be seeing is the the variable ND filter looking like haze. I will try to get clean footage from straight from camera without any filters as soon as I'm free. Are you looking into buying one of these lenses?
This was shot on my Sony A7S II at 1080 with Slog 2. The lens shots where shot with same camera and same settings with a helios m44 58mm F2 and diopters for closer shots.
For a lens this old, its actually quite Sharp. Having said that, comparing it to a more modern lens its not as sharp. But considering the age of the lens I was pleased with how it performed. It has a creamy look that that looks pleasing.
I think personally that it has a vintage look. Comparing it to a digital wide lens you'll notice the difference. To make that makes it different. The newer digital lenses look too normal and with no distinct characteristics. But its again personal opinion and your point is valid as well. Its all personal taste. Do you have a preferred wide lens?
That's the point of vintage lenses on digital cameras. They are not sharp which takes away that dreaded cold "digital" aesthetic of modern lens/camera combos. This is the "character" people are looking for and is often used in modern films with digital cameras.
About to buy this lens and didn't know about the rotating front element. Very helpful, thank you!
You're right. In Dutch they called it the fast "O" ring type. I have the other one which is a bit cheaper. Added an old EF 11-24L beside my FD 17. Hello from Amsterdam.
I suddenly have the NEED to buy this lens 😍😍😍 Thank for the footage
Its a very fun lens to shoot with!!
Had this lens but sold it for the Tokina 17mm AT-X pro. A lot sharper, better build quality and the filter threads don’t rotate, so you can put a vari ND or matte box on no problem. Oh and it’s A LOT cheaper and covers FF.
It´s outstanding that creamy and cinematographic color that this lens can reach.
It really its a beautiful look this lens has!!
On my list! Thanks for shooting this footage, I kept finding awful example, so it's great to find something great like this. Keep it up!
Thank you for your kind words!
For anyone looking for a vintage ultrawide alternative without the rotation issue for variable ND usage the Toking RMC 17mm F3.5 is fantastic. Flaring characteristics match the FD S.S.C. line and any other variations with similar coatings. Build isn't quite as robust as the FD's but otherwise I use it over the FD 17mm or 20mm on every shoot at this point. It's starting to climb in price as well but can be found in various mount types for those already using adapters. Also seems to perform better in terms of overall sharpness and aberrations especially in the center. Corners are still dark and lacking like any of the FD ultrawides. Plus I'd say the overall look changes between wide open and one stop down more noticeably than the FD's do.
Also the Tokina 17mm AT-X Pro (from the 90’s) is excellent if you want it in EF
Thanks for this video. That is a beautiful lens.
Stunning work.
This lens, with a good quality focak reducer, is awesome for food photography, architecture, interiors, events, photojournalism... Basically most subject matter.
man that just looks great!
Hia. Thanks for the great review. It's a little difficult to tell because I don't have my computer handy and am watching this on my phone, but is it a sharp lens? I get the impression that it's softer than many would consider ideal. Is this fair, or am I just mislead by the phone screen?
Thanks
Can you make a video on the 28mm as well?
It was actually on my list. Just need to finish editing one video and then ill work on the 28mm video!
Did you shoot any interiors or architecture and if so how well is distortion controlled viz a vis straight lines? Any corrections required in post?
this is what I needed to know. you cant use a matte box attached to the lens because it will spin. welp my short set is complete then!
Was all of this shot on the sony A7S? and did you shoot it in full frame or apsc?
Love the video; nice review! I'm trying to decide between this lens and the FD 20mm 2.8. Do you have any insight on comparing the two? I shoot on the BMPCC 4K with a Metabones Ultra Speedbooster, and I've had my FD glass converted to EF mount by Simmod. I currently have the 28mm 2.8, 35mm F2, 55mm 1.2 and the 70-210mm F4.
Thank you I appreciate it!
Here's the specs for both lenses
Both
6 aperture blades
72mm front filter thread.
0.9ft (10.8in) close focus
17mm
104° field of view (full frame)
F4 to F22
Focus Ring Rotation: approx. 140°
Weight: 490g
20mm
94° field of view (full frame)
F2.8 to F22
Focus ring Rotation: approx 130°
Weight: 305g
Unfortunately I haven't gotten a chance to use the 20mm lens. But what I do know is that the FDn version is lighter than the SSC version. The lens is not too sharp at 2.8 so you'd have to stop down to a 4 or 5.6 for more sharpess edge to edge. Both lenses have the same close focus distance but the 20mm has a slight advantage since the focus ring Rotation on the 20mm is smaller by 10° so to rack focus from close to infinity is easier. The 17mm has the issue where the front element rotates along with the focus ring so if you use a clip on mattebox or variable ND those won't work with the lens. You would have yo have a studio mattebox a fixed ND filter. Now, I'm not sure if that's the same issue with the 20mm but I can look into it and see what i can find. Overall I'm enjoying the 17mm a lot! And if you're not in a rush I can manage to get a 20mm to give you a better answer and show you sample footage between the two lenses. You have a great set of FDs. Would love yo hear what you think of the 55mm 1.2
@@dln.camera5524 Thanks, I appreciate it! I'm curious how sharp the 20mm is below F4. Might be the deciding factor. Although, about a 10% wider field-of-view isn't arbitrary. Is there any barrel-distortion with the 17mm?
There is some barrel distortion on the 17mm but it's not too heavy. Unless you are doing architecture shots where theres more straight lines. It might be worth it to go for the 20mm with the wider aperture.
@@dln.camera5524 Yeah that'd be awesome! I'm in no hurry. I'm hoping to get it back from Simmod in the next week or so. I've got some test footage of the FD 28mm 2.8 on my channel. I was quite pleased with how it turned out, especially since that's a pretty affordable lens.
Love the FD lenses but anything wider than 28mm are a lot more expensive and as much as I love vintage it’s no longer budget
Still have it?
Do you have any footage without post production color grading? Or does the lens have haze and fungus build up inside?
The lens seems to be clean with no signs of fongus or haze. What you might be seeing is the the variable ND filter looking like haze. I will try to get clean footage from straight from camera without any filters as soon as I'm free. Are you looking into buying one of these lenses?
@@dln.camera5524 Yes I am
Which camera?
This was shot on my Sony A7S II at 1080 with Slog 2.
The lens shots where shot with same camera and same settings with a helios m44 58mm F2 and diopters for closer shots.
how sharp is this lens?
For a lens this old, its actually quite Sharp. Having said that, comparing it to a more modern lens its not as sharp. But considering the age of the lens I was pleased with how it performed. It has a creamy look that that looks pleasing.
thank you
I have had this lens on Sony A7 II and it is not sharp or special in any way. It is wide and thats all.
I think personally that it has a vintage look. Comparing it to a digital wide lens you'll notice the difference. To make that makes it different. The newer digital lenses look too normal and with no distinct characteristics. But its again personal opinion and your point is valid as well. Its all personal taste. Do you have a preferred wide lens?
That's the point of vintage lenses on digital cameras. They are not sharp which takes away that dreaded cold "digital" aesthetic of modern lens/camera combos. This is the "character" people are looking for and is often used in modern films with digital cameras.